Stalker 2 requires a fairly beefy PC, 150GB of free SSD space

midian182

Posts: 7,081   +62
Staff member
In a nutshell: Stalker 2 was one of several exciting games revealed at E3 that look gorgeous, but those stunning graphics mean a pretty beefy rig is required to get the most out of the game—even the minimum specs are quite demanding compared to some modern titles—and you may need to clear space from your SSD.

We’ve been waiting for a new Stalker game since 2009’s Call of Pripyat. At E3, it was revealed that the next entry in the franchise—Stalker 2: Heart of Chernobyl—is one of several that Xbox Game Pass subscribers will be able to play on the day of release; in this case, April 28, 2022.

Those who can’t wait to get back to the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone can pre-purchase Stalker 2 right now on Steam, where the system requirements are listed. The minimum specs ask for a Ryzen 5 1600X / Core i5-7600K and Radeon RX 580 8GB / GeForce GTX 1060 6GB. That’s more demanding than Cyberpunk 2077, Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War, and Watch Dogs Legion. Plus, players require an SSD with 150GB of free space.

Stalker 2 Minimum requirements

  • OS: Windows 10
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-7600K or AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
  • RAM: 8GB
  • GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB / AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB
  • Storage: 150GB
  • Additional notes: SSD

Moving onto the recommended specs, the CPU requirement is upped to a Core i7-9700K or Ryzen 7 3700X, and you’ll need at least a Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB / GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8GB / GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB.

Stalker 2 recommended specifications

  • OS: Windows 10
  • Processor: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | Intel Core i7-9700K
  • Memory: 16GB RAM
  • Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8GB | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB
  • Storage: 150GB
  • Additional notes: SSD

Many modern AAA games require a huge chunk of storage space, such as CoD: Modern Warfare’s 200GB, and several, including Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, recommend an SSD, though few ask for a solid-state drive as a minimum requirement; World of Warcraft: Shadowlands is one that comes to mind. You can play that game on HDD, but performance may be heavily impacted.

Unlike many other titles, no targeted frame rates/resolutions were included in the PC requirements, but they could be added before Stalker 2 arrives next year.

Permalink to story.

 

kimo1

Posts: 241   +437
Looking at the specs and how many people are incapable of purchasing any computer with word "gaming" in title, do you now understand why many people prefer to watch other people play games on YT/Twitch? Because, that's all we can afford, just to watch and dream...
1nu1mt.jpg
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 444   +709
Joke is on them. Most gamers can't even upgrade to a new GPU....

STALKER 2 will fail because of "supply issues".

Actually, I could run her on my 980Ti, but I'd have to sacrifice a lot of settings.....stupid *** "supply issues".
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,389   +2,458
In fairness GTX1060 is now five year old hardware. The developer did not imagine that nobody would be able to replace a card like that for the past 18 months with something faster and reasonably priced. Any other normal generational leap everyone would have been buying up RTX3060s and the like by now.
 

GamerNerves

Posts: 102   +53
Just on par for the recommended! I'm surprised if this game really requires such hefty CPU as R7 3700X. CPU heavy games are often janky, but so was the original Stalker too for me at least. I don't know if the game was that CPU heavy or what.
 

eTheBlack

Posts: 14   +25
Nobody:
Gamers: Consoles are holding back games!
Gamers: Hardware requirements is to high!
Gamers: Consoles are holding back games!
Repeat.
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 444   +709
Just on par for the recommended! I'm surprised if this game really requires such hefty CPU as R7 3700X. CPU heavy games are often janky, but so was the original Stalker too for me at least. I don't know if the game was that CPU heavy or what.
The original STALKER did not handle AMD cards well. Performance with them was pretty bad, if I remember correctly. It took some work to get things fixed on that end of things.

I remember the game running pretty good with my Phenom II x4 940 and 8800GTS 512MB cards in SLI.
 

Kosmoz

Posts: 382   +687
What I want to know is if "Stalker 2 recommended specifications" are for 1080 60fps? With RT on?
1440p? How about 4k?

There is nothing specific about that, so which one is it?

There is a big difference between them, so it matters a lot....
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,292   +3,369
What I want to know is if "Stalker 2 recommended specifications" are for 1080 60fps? With RT on?
1440p? How about 4k?

There is nothing specific about that, so which one is it?

There is a big difference between them, so it matters a lot....
It's likely for 1080p since it's the "default" res and around 60fps. But yeah, today with 3 main resolutions, now even RT, it's gonna become a chore for devs to find and list all these specs.
 

arrowflash

Posts: 460   +498
The new rig I've built barely scrapes over the recommended specs. Now all we can do is wait and see if these 150 GB mean a huge open world with lots of content, or if it's 130 GB of 8K textures and uncompressed audio in 20+ languages, plus 20 GB of actual game content. We also can only wait and see if the graphics and complexity will justify the CPU, GPU and ram requirements. Considering the previous installments track record, I wouldn't bet on it...

The original STALKER games (especially the first) also required fairly beefy hardware by late 2000s standards to run well, and while they looked good, the graphics weren't very impressive. There were much better looking games already.
 

Glenn Haggerty

Posts: 138   +46
TechSpot Elite
Just upgraded my mobo from ASUS PRIME X570- P to GIGABYTE X570 AORUS MASTER with 4TB'S of NVME, 3 of the TB'S are high speed gen 4.0. Also upgraded my Ryzen 3600 to Ryzen 5600X and already have a RTX 3070. The Mobo upgrade won't increase the performance from the Asus Prime so much, but gives me an Xtra M-2 slots well as front & rear 3.2 usb ports. It will also keep all the hardware running at cooler temps. With the game Stalker 2 coming out it seems like I'm just keeping pace without being too far ahead.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 824   +732
My rig is already above recommended specs, and I only play at 1440p. But by end of 2022 if RDNA3 and Zen 4 are out and available at sensible prices, I can I might upgrade my older PC anyway.
 

Tantor

Posts: 189   +335
Really hoping for either linux support directly or it runs well with proton! I loved the older Stalker games

I agree. I dual boot Win and Linux, but since Dying Light, Valheim and Stellaris run fine in Linux, I don't use Windows any more.
 

0dium

Posts: 236   +280
The new rig I've built barely scrapes over the recommended specs. Now all we can do is wait and see if these 150 GB mean a huge open world with lots of content, or if it's 130 GB of 8K textures and uncompressed audio in 20+ languages, plus 20 GB of actual game content. We also can only wait and see if the graphics and complexity will justify the CPU, GPU and ram requirements. Considering the previous installments track record, I wouldn't bet on it...

The original STALKER games (especially the first) also required fairly beefy hardware by late 2000s standards to run well, and while they looked good, the graphics weren't very impressive. There were much better looking games already.
They used their own proprietary engine back then. This time it's UE4.
 

redhat

Posts: 168   +212
Frankly I am not surprised as I always have performance problems with UE game framework, so requiring high specs is not surprising
 

GamerNerves

Posts: 102   +53
The original STALKER games (especially the first) also required fairly beefy hardware by late 2000s standards to run well, and while they looked good, the graphics weren't very impressive. There were much better looking games already.
Could you elaborate which games looked better at the time in your opinion? I don't recall many, but obviously Crysis looked fantastic and Unreal Tournament 3 was wonderful too. I just think Stalker series is very dividing on the visual appeal, since there is no much enviromental details that many would appreciate or heavy use of post processing, but overall textures, draw distance and various effects were impressive. I personally really liked the visual style.
 
Last edited:

arrowflash

Posts: 460   +498
Could you elaborate which games looked better at the time in your opinion? I don't recall many, but obviously Crysis looked fantastic and Unreal Tournament 3 was wonderful too. I just think Stalker series is very dividing on the visual appeal, since there is no much enviromental details that many appreciate or heavy use of post processing, but overall textures, draw distance and various effects were impressive. I personally really liked the visual style.

You just mentioned two. Bioshock also looked a lot better, in fact most UE3 engine games did. There was also Doom 3, The Chronicles of Riddick, Dead Space... the main issue in STALKER is that the lighting was really flat, even CoP without mods looked more like a DX7 or DX8 game.

But then you mention visual style / art direction. That's a completely different thing and more a matter of taste than anything objective. Yes, STALKER's visual style is great and very fitting.
 

godrilla

Posts: 272   +137
They used their own proprietary engine back then. This time it's UE4.
Just goes to show for a 2022 target launch using unreal engine 4 will probably make any games worth playing on Unreal Engine 5 years away ( mid current gen console life cycle respective to demo/ hardware reveal)